Dana Priest Mocks Liberals For Taking Seriously The Threat Of An Attack On Iran

During a Washignton Post online chat today, war and intelligence correspondent Dana Priest ridiculed the idea that Bush might attack Iran before he leaves office, dismissing as “an accepted notion in liberal circles” that has “no foundation“:

“Going to war with Iran” has become an accepted notion in liberal circles and every kernel of news gets fanned by people who believe — with no foundation in my opinion — that it’s only a matter of time before Bush pulls the proverbial trigger.

Americans hardly need to “fan” “every kernel of news” to come to the conclusion that Bush might be gearing up for an attack — or at least encouraging its ally, Israel, to attack in its stead. After all, neocon allies of the Bush administration — not liberals — strive constantly to make it clear that an attack is still very much a possibility:

John Bolton: The Isrealies attacking Iran “during President Bush’s term makes a lot of sense.”

Bill Kristol: When asked if “there’s any chance” Bush will attack Iran, Kristol replied, “I don’t think it’s out of the question.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “I wish that this administration would specifically and clearly warn the Iranians that…unless they stop it, we’re going to take action. … They ought to believe that we’re going to hit those training camps.”

Daniel Pipes: Pipes said that the U.S. should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack,” adding, “Should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something.”

Liz Cheney: “The time for diplomacy here is rapidly coming to an end.“

New reports indicate that the U.S. has already begun cross-border operations into Iran. Is it really so crazy for Americans to worry that Bush could launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that had not attacked us?